Why several countries prefer the F-35 to the Rafale: technical analysis, alliances, industry and increased budget.

Several European countries are opting for the F-35 rather than the Rafale despite the recognized quality of the French fighter jet. This complex choice is motivated by technological, strategic, industrial, and political factors. For some, interoperability with NATO is crucial; for others, long-term modernization prospects or operating costs play a decisive role. This report offers a surgical, uncompromising analysis for an informed readership. You will discover how stealth, advanced electronics, the transatlantic supply chain, and diplomatic dynamics are shaping purchasing decisions. The challenge is to understand why a country would abandon an excellent European fighter jet, the Rafale, in favor of an American system deemed more suited to its current and future needs, despite obvious sovereign considerations. Data and feedback from the field reflect a reality that is often less political than technical. This overview untangles the sensitive issues: capabilities, compatibility, budgets, and the United States’ desire to exert influence. The objective is clear: to shed light on the decision, without resorting to political rhetoric.

Fifth-generation technology

The F-35 offers unrivalled total stealth, the result of a radar-transparent design and internal weaponry. In reconnaissance missions, the tactical advantage is clear. The AN/APG-81 AESA radar, DAS system, HMDS, and EOTS merge spatial and temporal data, improving situational awareness. In comparison, the Rafale, although discreet (composite, delta-canard configuration), has a larger radar profile and relies on active electronic warfare.

The Rafale nevertheless has some advantages: RBE2 AA AESA radar with a range of 200 km, supercruise at Mach 1.4, and SPECTRA jamming/detection system. This system offers good EM protection, but does not match the passive stealth of the F-35, which is useful in saturated environments. In SEAD or protected penetration missions, the F-35 remains preeminent. Finally, its ability to evolve with standards (F-35A to F-35J/K) and regular software updates ensure continuous evolution over several decades—something the Rafale, designed in the 1990s, struggles to match.

Interoperability and alliances

The F-35 is a central component of NATO’s air defense posture. More than 13 European countries operate it, facilitating coalition work without adaptation. Flight, threat, and weapons data management is standardized: everyone speaks the same tactical language. For example, Belgium has selected 34 F-35As for around $4 billion, which is $600 million less than its planned budget, highlighting the value of a consistent offering within an integrated military alliance.

Conversely, the Rafale requires proprietary links, and its interconnections with the F-35, F-16, and NATO systems require specific, sometimes costly developments. Interoperability therefore becomes a logistical and financial constraint.

Industry, politics, and dependence

The F-35 purchases are part of a shared industrial strategy. Italy, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Norway benefit from supply chains on their own soil. These partnerships guarantee local jobs and technology transfers. Conversely, orders for the Rafale are managed centrally by Dassault and remain outside the European multilateral framework.

Political pressure is also making headway. Under the Trump administration, uncertainty over supplies, and even the fantasy of a “kill switch,” has shaken some states. This has fueled the debate on air sovereignty. However, despite these reservations, several countries have stuck with the F-35. Portugal, Canada, and some former partners have considered switching to the Rafale or Gripen, but industrial inertia and NATO integration have prompted them to abandon the idea.

Costs and strategic developments

The F-35 is expensive to acquire, with a unit price of between $80 and $110 million (≈ €74-101 million), excluding logistics. Its life cycle, spread over several decades, is supported by a transnational maintenance plan. The Rafale costs about the same to purchase (≈$100 million), but its operating costs are lower: approximately $15,000/hour compared to more than $40,000–50,000/hour for the F-35. For smaller fleets, the Rafale may seem more economical to operate.

However, a long-term program is shaping European decisions: the FCAS (Future Combat Air System) initiated by France, Germany, and Spain. This program aims to develop a sixth-generation fighter capable of competing with the F-35K and Japanese aircraft. The Rafale is a stepping stone, but the F-35, with its critical mass, has won the current technology race, making it a more pragmatic choice.

Challenges and prospects

Even with its advantages, the F-35 raises concerns. Dependence on US updates, strategic uncertainties, and industry concentration raise questions. Europe is trying to bounce back with a $150 billion European defense fund, support for companies such as Thales, Saab, and MBDA, attempts to localize production of the F-35 series, and competition with the Typhoon and Gripen.

For the purchasing countries, the calculation pits stealth capability + interoperability against cost per flight hour + industrial sovereignty. The choice of the F-35 marks a strategy of calculated dependence on the US, banking on economies of scale and the power of a global standard.

Get in touch to live a unique fighter jet experience – we fly in France AND YOU CAN TAKE THE CONTROLS!!!